On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:11:22 -1000 (HST), Warren Togami wrote:
Should we leave the existing fedora.us Extras as-is, or should we
provide
maybe a "perl-virtual" package that provides the equivalent virtual
provides as this new standard for FC2. That way all perl modules from now
on can have theoretical compatibility and exact Requires, completely
avoiding these ugly hacks of requiring a directory.
Thoughts?
Sounds good. Let's touch them when the time has come. The perl module
packages in fedora.us should be pretty stable upgrade-wise, since they
don't depend on a specific Perl version (except for automated sanity
related deps like perl >= 0:5.005). But for update packages to be modified
and prepared for FC 1.90, we should no longer include "unowned"
vendor/site/multi directories, even if the updated package will create
unowned directories on FC1. As soon as a new perl core package is
available, which provides the necessary virtual capabilities as Chip
Turner has explained, we could simulate it with a meta-package for FC1 to
benefit from being able to build the same src.rpm for multiple releases of
FC and increase the dependencies of noarch.rpms. We could make such a
package include the unowned Perl directories, too.
--